Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The truth about the 5.56mm round
TriggaFingaz    1/24/2004 1:51:19 PM
To all infantrymen and gunusers out there , tell me this: is the 5.56x45mm round an effective round or is it so weak that you need more than one shot to drop a man? Some books say that it is absolutely lethal, able to stop one's heart owing to sheer velocity. Other accounts claim that enemy soldiers hit with this round continue charging. Some books claim it will tumble and dig multiple wound channels in the body, detractors claim it drills straight though people but yet has poor anti-material penetration. Which is more accurate? Please specify whether you used M193 or M855 'green tips'.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
wagner95696    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   9/20/2004 7:11:09 PM
About 25 years ago the Swedes prototyped a .17 cal. rimfire based on the .22 WRM case. I believe it was a little less powerful than the new .17 Rimfore magnum. It fired a very long solid copper bullet. It was supposed to penetrate a helmet at 300 meters.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   9/20/2004 7:47:12 PM
"Shockwave" doesn't kill. Also, unless the temporary expansion is sufficient to rupture tissue it soon returns to normal. Rabbits, etc. react the way thet do because they are so small that they are literally ruptured like over expanded balloons. One can not tranlate effects on very ssmall animals to large animals. Links: http://www.mindspring.com/~ulfhere/ballistics/wounding.html http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   9/20/2004 7:57:09 PM
The .223/5.56 case expanded to 6.5--6.8mm caliber comes very close to equaling the proposed 6.8 round and would not require new case manufacturing facilities, or new magazines. All of these proposals suffer from the failing that in order to provide ballistic coefficients high enough to maintain penetration at long ranges the bullets themselves must be long. It is not possible to use bullets that long within the existing 5.56 cartridge overall length without the bullet intruding so far into the case as to seriously reduce effective case capacity.
 
Quote    Reply

wagner95696    RE:6.8 vs. 5.56   9/20/2004 7:58:24 PM
It does the same thing that an equal number of rounds fired from a single shot does.
 
Quote    Reply

VisigothCSA    RE:quad 50 firepower   9/21/2004 10:01:25 AM
Right now the US has .50 cal gatlin guns in its inventory. Some of those could be mounted on light armor like an up armored Humvee or the Cadillac-Gage Commandos. Either the 3 or 4 barrel models would have a higher rate of fire than the quads and would almost certainly also be lighter. 3 to 4 thousand rounds per minute of .50 armor piercing would ruin just about anyone's day.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:quad 50 firepower   9/21/2004 12:39:25 PM
while it's fun to have such toys there really isn't much practical reason for them i can see. if you can trash something with a .50 one the good ol ma deuce is enough. If you cannot kill it with a .50 more barrels and rounds down range isn't really going to help the cause a lot. Speaking of firepower demonstrations didn't a jap destroyer get strafed out of existance in ww2? i remember thinking what a lousy way to go at the time.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    s'quad area suppression firepower, and modular weapon system for Soldier 21   9/21/2004 1:58:34 PM
The GAU-19 is the 3-barrel 12.7mm gun available to the US military, with ROF up to 2000rpm. http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/gau-19_externalmount/gau-19_external.htm (click on the fact sheet, it's in Adobe .pdf format) Also notice the twin mount installation on the port side of the Kiowa. Jumping from there to the main page, you will see a plethora of projects and weapons video clips available, including the GAU-19. The fact sheet says it can fit NATO standard 14 inch stores rails. The US M55 quad mount 50 cal (originally a Kimberly-Cark/Bowen McLaughlin product) is quoted as having a 500rpm per barrel cyclic rate of fire. The Czech M53 quad uses 4 of the Russian DShK 12.7mm guns, with a 550-600rpm per barrel cyclic rate. So in theory, removing the 4 50 cal MGs and mounting one GAU-19 on each side in place of the two MGs would afford a twin GAU mounting capable of 4000rpm. And the US M55 mounts often had their own little APU to provide power for the traverse and elevation mechanisms, so this could certainly provide sufficient juice for the miniguns to spin up (some current miniguns have a gas-tap system which enables some of the gun gases to be recovered and used to power/assist the gun, similar to gas-operated MGs in principle.) Another nice page with minigun everything is: http://www.montysminiguns.com/RealityPage.htm A lot of images means a slow load if you have a low-bandwidth connection, though. Down near the bottom, there is a close-up of the twin 7.62mm minigun turret of the early HueyCobra attack helicopter. Imagine that under the nose of a B-17. Or even a pair of GAU-19 50 cals. Anyways... I am surprised that American ingenuity has not created the "gun truck" concept in Iraq, as was done in Viet Nam, where a 2 1/2 or 5 ton truck is up-armored (welded plates) and equipped with several MGs, typically M60s and M2s. A HEMTT cargo vehicle has ample room for 4 miniguns (off the corners of the cargo bed) and several thousand rounds of ammo. There was years ago one of those cheap B-movie post-apocalyptic films about gangs in what was left in the US, and they had a "gun bus", an armored school bus with a non-stock engine (something like a V8 Chevy big block) and 8 MGs on pintle mounts sticking out the windows (3 per side, one out the back, one out the front, and allowing room from the other windows for the other passengers to fire out of.) An interesting "novelty" concept, but in urban operations, could create some serious psychological effect. And having about 20 people in the buses with 360 vision and about a ton of MG ammo makes for an interesting concept. Modern ballistic glass and vehicle armor could make the truck immune to MG fire. My, how we have strayed from the original thread. Anyhow, swith the 5.56mm to either 6.5mm Grendel or the 6.8mm, make a better SAW to fire it (no troops in their right mind would want to carry a 6.8mm minigun and its ammo magazine), and equip every 4th or 5th vehicle (Humvee, FMTV, HEMTT, etc) with either a GAU-19 (instead of M2) or a new minigun in above caliber. Perhaps we could even install some (gyro-stabilized on a remote weapon station?) long-range sniping weapons (12.7mm firing APDS or 20/25mm firing fuzed airburst rounds out to >2000m.) Strykers should have this feature (single shot snipe) incorporated into their RWS, along with extended range optics, if they don't have it already. Stalling on a decision to get a better round than 5.56mm is only going to result in more American lives lost. We should have done it just after Desert Storm, and now some of our service men and women are paying the price for it (meaning, if you can engage and stop an enemy a longer distance from you, you have a better chance of survival.) The ideal weapon for our 21st Century Soldier could be a modular system that uses a common lower receiver (handle, buttstock, and trigger group) and swaps out the uppers for short range CQB (shotgun or SMG), standard field assault rifle (at least with capable performance out to about 400-600m), heavy snipe (600-1200m ?), and an anti-material upper capable of single-shot firing the 12.7mm or 20/25mm payload rounds (>1200m.) On the Armed Forces Journal link I posted up on the other 5.56mm thread here: http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/analysis1.html ...on one of the later pages, they mention someone has been working on just such a "modular" upper and lower receiver system feasible for an integrated vaiable weapon system (ideal for our concept Soldier 21.) .
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    jap destroyer strafed   9/21/2004 2:07:21 PM
Ehran, I think I've seen the footage you are talking about. But I thought maybe it was a transport. Anyhow, judging by the explosion, it was either a transport hauling munitions and fuel, or it was a destroyer with something very volatile sitting on the deck getting hit with API 12.7mm ammo. Most likely, it could have been one of those big 24inch Long Lance torpedoes. Having one of those burst (considering they were fueled by a very volatile oxygen mix) on the deck could certainly tear a ship in half, especially considering the torpedoes beside it (normally in pairs or triples) probably detonated as well. The same principle is put to good use in the A-10: certainly a 30mm round through the top can damage a tank. So how about almost 100 rounds? Enough brass on target can cause just as much damage as a single, large shell. But Humvees don't like firing anything bigger than a 40mm MGL off the roof, so rapid-fire guns in small caliber will always have a place as support weapons..
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    RE:The 5.56mm round Vs 7mm   9/21/2004 2:22:52 PM
Just before the UK went over to the NATO standard round they developed a superb 7mm round. Although heavier and bulkier, this round carries kinetic energy enough to knock down out to a useful range. If range of lethal fire doesn't matter to you (nor penetration) why not switch to a 5mm BB gun? (joke))
 
Quote    Reply

VisigothCSA    RE:jap destroyer strafed   9/21/2004 4:12:56 PM
I have seen some of that gun camera footage too. Some of this was shot from B-25 (I think): Twin engine bombers carrying up to 12 .50s, 8 or so firing foward. It was said that these bombers could cut destroyers and transports in half. That some of their targets exploded is not very surprising.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics